WDFW is really taking a beating on social media after the announcement about the closures today. I guess we can't expect people to understand all the complexities of the issue, but they are shooting the messenger.

WDFW's gonna have to figure out a way to redirect some of that pressure to NOAA-F.

It may be worth re-stating that we are not only looking at no salmon fishing on Puget Sound and its rivers there will also be no fishing for game fish on any freshwater water areas where Chinook may be found. That means come June first none of the local rivers will open for steelhead or other game fish. It also means that starting likely next week there will be no fishing for bass, perch, cutthroat or other game fish on Lake Washington.

The ban of fishing for game fish in those freshwater areas will remain in place until such time as the State gets "federal ESA take coverage" for potential Chinook encounters. We should soon see a extensive listed of emergency regulations closure posted by WDFW that will remain in place until an optimist mid-summer to potentially several years!

While the Puget Sound marine anglers will have Ling cod , Halibut, flounders and maybe cutthroat to fish for the freshwater folks will have nothing for the duration.

Curt

I like looking at that stuff. Do you mind sending all coho and chinook tag information concerning Washington/Oregon origin stocks caught in Alaska. Thanks

WDFW's gonna have to figure out a way to redirect some of that pressure to NOAA-F.

I hope WDFW gets reamed over this whole stinking pile of [Bleeeeep!] if for nothing but for this post...

WDFW would rather see all fishing shut down so that they can just sit in thier office and do nothing and just rub it in our faces... they will probably close lake roosevelt for fear that a coho might jump the grand coulee dam and miss the gillnet is was supposed to die in...

Everyone listen up! JustBecause has implored me to explain to you why this predicament is NOAA's fault.

NOAA is the office of the federal government that administers fisheries policy. They are requiring that waters where people fish for trout, bass and perch be closed down because on very rare occasions a chinook swims through there.

Oh and then there's the fact they've allowed the tribes to drive fishing policy in WA state for the last 30 years.

Chaisin', Thanks for demonstrating exactly what I hoped you would, a complete misunderstaning of the feds role and authority here...

NOAA is the fed agency that administers the ESA for marine species, that is their only role In Puget Sound. The state and tribes, together, are responsible for all aspects of fishery management, or mis-management. Remember, an agreement here solves everything!

Sorry, but I'm just shaking my head over the ridiculous amount of information you just asked me to send you, so I'm just going to assume you don't understand how much you are asking for.

According to last year’s Co-Managers LOAF agreement, the Tulalip tribe would have started by now last year to fish for Chinook---No agreement no fishing?

Another early casualty could be a C&S Chinook fishery in 78C&79D Skagit River area involving several weeks beginning as early as May 3 last year. This involving a possible 3 tribes.

Could be a handful of unhappy tribes right about now.

Can someone explain to me where WDFW is in the process of applying for ESA take coverage for listed Chinook?

The reason I ask this is because this issue -- potentially shutting down fisheries if no agreement with the tribes is reached -- is not new. If I recall correctly, the issue came up last year as well when the WDFW capitulated to tribal demands and closed area 10. I seem to recall reports at the time saying WDFW was "blindsided" and capitulated because its leadership concluded that if no agreement was reached it would likely result in closed fisheries throughout Puget sound, and maybe even on the coast. So it appears WDFW has known about this problem for at least a year, and it knew the situation could resurface this year.

It doesn't take a genius in game theory to understand that WDFW is at a significant negotiating disadvantage when it must rely on reaching agreement with each of the tribes in order to proceed with its proposed fisheries. I would expect 2015's North of Falcon process to have driven that point home to WDFW's leadership.

So, given that, did WDFW take any proactive steps to secure the necessary ESA take coverage? I'm not trying to bash WDFW here -- I really just want to understand what kind of contingency planning the agency did given that the lack of agreement with one or more tribes was very foreseeable. And, if WDFW did not take any proactive steps, perhaps there are good reasons why it didn't -- and if there are I'd like to hear them.

It's quite probable that even if WDFW had started the ESA take coverage process (e.g., rule 4(d) exemption, Sec. 10 permit) immediately after North of Falcon 2015, the process would still not be complete. Nonetheless, if it had started the process (i.e., prepared and submitted an application), it may have been in a much better position than it is today.